Bible & the Roman Catholic Church

7/30/2019 Bible & the Roman Catholic Church

1/47

The Bible and the Roman Church

byJ. C. Macaulay

Contents:

Book Cover (Front)

Scan / Edit Notes

Preface

1. Roman Infallibles2. Does Rome Suppress The Bible?3. The Perpetual Sacrifice4. The Dogma of Transubstantiation5. The Roman Priesthood6. The Cult of Mary7. Rome's Way of Salvation

8. Rome in History9. Lessons from Rome

Scan / Edit Notes

Versions available:

Format: v1.0 (Text)Format: v1.0 (PDB - open format)Format: v1.5 (HTML)Format: v1.5 (PDF)Genera: Christian: ApologeticsExtra's: Cover Picture includedCopyright: 1946Scanned / Edited: 06-02-2007

- Salmun

Preface

The chapters of this book were given first of all as messages in the Wheaton Bible Church. The studiesaroused keen interest and elicited many earnest inquiries, particularly from college students. Thisunexpected response suggested that the chapters might be profitable to others if put in permanent form.

I wish to have it clearly understood that I harbor no animosity toward Roman Catholics, and I wouldgladly champion their right to religious freedom if it were jeopardized. I have been more and moreprofoundly convinced, however, that Protestants in general are quite ignorant of the teachings of RomanCatholicism. My first thought, therefore, in preaching these sermons, and now in publishing them, wasto instruct our Protestant Christians in the true differences between the two faiths. I have been pleased to

Page 1 of 47The Bible and the Roman Church by J. C. Macaulay

3/12/2012http://salmun.cwahi.net/wrel/rchrist/apol/cath/brc/brc.htm


2/47

learn, however, of profit to Roman Catholics through the reading of some of these chapters inmanuscript form, and I trust that the volume now sent forth may accomplish this double purpose oinstructing those of my own faith, and turning some who have been taught in the sacramentarianism oRome to the freedom of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have given my utmost endeavor to be entirely fair to the Roman position, and I believe I havepresented their point of view accurately. I now commit the work to our Lord for its further ministry,

praying that He may be glorified, His people blessed, and many brought to a saving knowledge of ourLord and Savior Jesus Christ.

J. C. M.Wheaton, Illinois

1. Roman Infallibles

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because

there is no light in them" - (Isaiah 8:20).

Matthew tells us how the scribes and the Pharisees found fault with the disciples of Jesus for notwashing their hands before meals, the ground of their complaint being religious, not hygienic. "Why dothy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" Our Lord's reply was as stinging as it was startling:"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" He backed up his charge byreferring to their dogma of corban, by which these hypocrites released themselves from their plain dutyunder the fifth commandment, then applied to them the scorching words of the prophet: "But in vainthey do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

The Roman church is the perfect successor of the scribes and Pharisees in respect of this substitution otraditions and commandments of men for the plain teaching of Holy Scripture. Secondary authorities

have been introduced, and become primary, while the primary authority of God's Word has beenrelegated to secondary place. Because this question of authority is basic to any comparison of theteachings of Rome with our evangelical position, we must begin here.

This extension of authority beyond the range of Holy Scripture is carried in several directions. First, theapocryphal books are given canonicity, introducing a corrupt element into the Sacred Volume; next, theapostolical and ecclesiastical traditions are added as "the unwritten word," and made binding upon allconsciences; then, the church's interpretations claim the full authority and sanction of original revelation.Apocrypha, tradition, interpretation - these are the things added, with which the Holy Scriptures aremade to share their glory of divine authority and infallibility.

The apocryphal books need not detain us. With all their interest to the biblical scholar, they utterly lackthe stamp of divine inspiration so patent in the true canonical works, which, by their unity, spiritualforce, and self-authenticating power, have consistently held their place as "the Word of God."

The traditions profess to give information, not included in the Scriptures, concerning the beginnings oour Christian faith. If the text of Scripture has required very special care to preserve it from corruptionthrough the centuries, it certainly would require continuous miracle to keep tradition from degeneratinginto trash. Now it was exactly to avoid this that our Scriptures were given us. Luke specifically states thepurpose of his writing - "That thou mightet know the certainty of these things, wherein thou hast beeninstructed." Memory and repetition were not to be trusted with so sacred and vital a deposit. The truth o




3/47

Scripture is demonstrable, but tradition defies investigation; its only props are the dogma of infallibility,and the authority of the church. The Council of Trent, at its fourth session (1546), decreed "that allshould receive with equal reverence the books of the Old and New Testaments, and the traditionsconcerning faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, or inspired by the Holy Spirit,and preserved in the Catholic Church; and that whosoever knowingly, or of deliberate purpose, despisedtraditions, should be anathema."

If this equality with the Holy Scriptures is to be firmly secured for the traditions, the council whichdecrees it so must bear authority enough to make it so. Thus the council, that is, the church, is vestedwith absolute authority in matters of faith and practice, and its decrees are regarded as indisputable,carrying all the finality of divine law. The church becomes the infallible guide, the sole interpreter, andthe "faithful" must not exercise their own hermeneutical powers, but receive the Word as interpreted bythe church without question.

This prerogative of the church is centered in the supreme pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, who isregarded as the Vicar of Christ on earth, successor to Peter. Actually the dogma of papal infallibility wasnot laid down as such till the Vatican Council of 1870, but that was only the enunciation of what hadlong been claimed and acted upon. In keeping with this, Pope Pius IV confirmed the decrees of the

Council of Trent in a bull issued in 1564. The pope is regarded as the supreme and infallible interpreterof the Christian faith.

We ought to understand this doctrine of papal infallibility in fairness to ourselves as well as to ourCatholic friends. Let one of them define it. I quote Dr. John A. O'Brien, one of the most popularapologists of the Roman church today:

What, then, does infallibility really mean? Simply this: When the Pope in his officialcapacity, with the fullness of his authority, as successor of St. Peter and head of theChurch on earth, proclaims a doctrine on faith or morals binding on the whole Church, he ispreserved from error. It is to be noted that three conditions are required: (1) The Pope mustspeak ex cathedra, i.e., from the Chair of Peter, in his official capacity; (2) the decision

must be binding on the whole Church; (3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals.

The Pope has no authority to invent a new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation, butonly its interpreter and expounder. [John A. O'Brien, Ph. D., The Faith of Millions(Huntington, Indiana. Our Sunday Visitor, 1938), p. 126.]

Papal infallibility is a prerogative exercised in the interpretive functions alone, according to thestatement of the Vatican Council: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in orderthat they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that, under His assistance, they mightguard inviolably, and with fidelity explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by theapostles." But certainly the church, by papal authority, holds doctrines and demands practices that themost vivid imagination could not discover in Scripture nor the most specious reasoning adduce from it.

Where do these come from? Tradition. Papal infallibility is thus utilized to bolster tradition, till the mostamazing and pretentious claims are concreted into dogma and set up as binding.

So while we Protestants have our authoritative revelation in the Holy Scriptures, Rome has its additions,its traditions, and its interpretations, all alike binding and equally authoritative with the Bible itself. I donot think any informed Catholic would dispute that statement of the case.

Such a situation demands examination. First, it is the way of heresy. Mormonism, too, professes beliein the Bible as the Word of God, but it has its own special inspired book, the Book of Mormon. Only




4/47

Mormonism does not rest its case on vague and unreliable tradition, but upon the discovery, as theyclaim, of sacred tablets containing the new revelation. Christian Science claims to hold the Bible asdivinely inspired, but Christian Science has its infallible interpreter in Mrs. Eddy. Set up any humanauthority beside the Sacred Scriptures, and you travel the way of heresy.

Again, whenever a second authority emerges it inevitably supersedes the primary authority. So it is inthe two heresies I have mentioned; and while Rome claims firm adherence to the Scriptures, actually

and practically it is the authority of the church, centered in the pope, that holds the minds of the people."The church says so," is the Roman equivalent of our "Thus saith the Lord." True, where Scripture canbe appealed to, this is done, especially when an answer to Protestants is required, but a decretal or a bullis enough for the masses of the Roman faith.

Actually, the Holy Scriptures are held in reverence as the inspired and authoritative Word of Godbecause the church has so decreed, not by virtue of any authority resident in the Scriptures themselves.Father O'Brien says:

"The Church then proceeds to declare by virtue of the teaching authority conferred uponher by Christ, as recorded in the historical document, called the New Testament, that thelatter is inspired. Up until the last moment the Scriptures were appealed to simply as ahistorical document. It is only now, after the teaching authority of the Church has beenestablished by the historical words of Christ that she terms the Scriptures inspired." [Ibid.,p. 143.]

One of the Jesuit fathers, Bailly, declared, "Without the author ity of the Church I would believe St.Matthew no more than Titus Livius," while Cardinal Hosius, president of the great Council of Trent,affirmed that apart from the authority of the Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight than thefables of Aesop. [Dr. J. A. Wylie, The Papacy (London: Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1867), p. 172.] Thusthe Scriptures depend for their authority on the author ity of the Church. The primary authority becomesthe secondary. "The first shall be last, and the last first."

Third, the pope's dominance of the interpretative functions demands a faith in man beyond his right, andit is dangerous in the extreme. How can we know that the traditions which papal infallibility hastransformed into dogma are not pure fiction, or at best a mere residuum of fact with a great admixture ocorruption? Let me give you a sample of what I mean.

A short time ago I became acquainted with Dr. Walter Manuel Montano, whose thrilling story has beenexcellently told by B. H. Pearson in The Monk Who Lived Again. The following incident, related in thebook, was told by Dr. Montano to a congregation in my church. It was during his monastery days, whenhe went by the name of Fray Luis. He was a Dominican friar, and a noted writer. On the decision of thepope to canonize a certain Beato Martin de Porres, who had been a lay member of the Dominican orderfour centuries before, Fray Luis was entrusted with the task of writing a history of the ancient brother,which was to be the basis of the canonization. Now very little was known about brother Martin, but hehad to be elevated to the sainthood, and a history had to be written, and Fray Luis was under orders. Ithen, he could not write a history, he could write fiction; and, since the purpose was holy and the ordersurgent, he made out a splendid story, replete with imaginary miracles. That work, which received theapproval of the Dominican order, was widely read in South America, and was accepted by his holiness,the pope, as proper grounds for the proposed canonization. The infallible pope canonized Martin on thebasis of a fiction. Might not the infallible pope pronounce a dogma founded on a fiction?

Infallibles ought to agree, but the Roman infallibles are consistent only if the Bible is discounted. Notonly have dogmas and practices been established which are not found in Scripture, and whose sanctions




5/47

are therefore referred to tradition, but others so established are positively counter to the clear teachingsand spirit of Scripture, so that we have a conflict between the primary authority and the other infallibles.The proof of that must await the consideration of some of those dogmas and practices.

2. Does Rome Suppress The Bible?

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and isa discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" - Hebrews 4:12.

With the Bible standing as a constant challenge to its claims and teachings, it is natural that Romeshould play down this primary authority while playing up its own. Indeed, Rome has gone further than aplaying down game; it has engaged in a consistent and persistent suppression of the Book. That, weknow, is strenuously denied by Rome's apologists.

"But facts are chiels that winna dingAn' daurna be disputed."

The Church affirms her fidelity to the Holy Scriptures, making high claims to be the preserver of theSacred Volume and the disseminator of its truths. Dr. O'Brien, for instance, seeking to acquit the RomanChurch of this charge, refers to editions of the Bible issued in the Middle Ages - 14 in High Germanbefore Luther sent out his translation in the common tongue, 156 in Latin, 6 in Hebrew, 10 in French, 11in Italian, 2 in Bohemian, one each in Flemish, Limousine, and Russian; and he cites Popes Leo XIII andBenedict XV in their solicitude that the people should be acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. We mightadd this little sentence found at the beginning of the new Roman Catholic New Testament:

"Pope Leo XIII granted to the faithful who shall read for at least a quarter of an hour thebooks of the Sacred Scriptures with the veneration due to the Divine Word and as spiritual

reading, an indulgence of 300 days."

But we are puzzled. If there is such anxiety to give the people the Word of God, why is there suchignorance of the Word of God on the part of the great multitude of Catholics, despite their attendance atparochial schools? Why are so few Bibles found in Catholic homes? Why, in the days of the church'spower, did she assiduously hunt down those who sought to give the people the Bible in their owntongue? Why have Roman bishops and priests burned such quantities of Bibles? Why do clergy still doall in their power to keep it from their people in parts where the church dominates, as in South America,Quebec, Spain, and Eire?

These are not straw men. Ask our missionaries from the Latin American republics whether the peoplethere have access to the Bible. And if the Romanist replies that it is no use giving the Bible to ignorantpeople who cannot even read, ask him again, "Why are they so ignorant? Why cannot they read? Is notthe Church the custodian of learning? Has she not been there long enough to establish universaleducation?" There is no such illiteracy in Protestant countries. But the lack of the Bible is not confinedto the illiterate. Ask the Bible Society why it had to leave Spain. Ask the Association of Regular Baptistsof Canada what kind of reception their New Testament distribution campaign is receiving in FrenchQuebec.

But Rome will answer: You are distributing Protestant Bibles, and your translations are corrupt. That iswhat they said about Luther's Bible, too. Then I say to Rome, Why not distribute your own Bibles so




6/47

that Protestants will not have to distribute theirs? It is rather inappropriate for Rome to talk about thequality of Protestant translations. The official Bible of Rome is the Latin Vulgate, and what scholarwould accept it as a standard? When it was issued by Sixtus V to the accompaniment of anathemasagainst any who would change a word of it, it was so full of corruptions that it had to be withdrawn andrevised, and was re-issued by Clementine VIII still under the name of Sixtus. I believe a new revision isin process of preparation - by Protestant scholars! Before Rome talks about Protestant versions, let herproduce better ones, and distribute them!

The fact is, Rome is afraid of the Bible in the speech of the people, The objection to the Protestant Bibleis a mere blind. Nearly a century ago, the British and Foreign Bible Society offered to print Bibles in theDouay version without note or comment, for distribution in Ireland. The Roman clergy absolutelyrefused, and the Irish Catholics went without their Catholic Bible.

The contradictions of Rome's profession as regards her attitude to the Bible and its dissemination arefound in official statements of her councils and popes. The Council of Toulouse, in the year 1229, madeit clear that no layman might possess any portion of the Old or the New Testament. A few centurieslater, when the Reformation had made its big impression on the mind of Europe, the Council of Trentseemed to make some concessions to the demand for the Bible. The people were not allowed to read the

Bible, except when they received a certificate of permission from their bishop or confessor, whichpermission was granted only if said bishop or confessor were quite sure that the reading of the SacredVolume would do the person in question no harm! Lest any should read without authorization, thesacred council decreed "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, withoutsuch a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." [The Papacy, p.181.]

Now let two popes speak, both in an attempt to destroy the work of the British and Foreign BibleSociety, which the Roman church has always held in fear and hatred. In the year 1816, Pope Pius VIIdecreed "That the Bible printed by heretics is to be numbered among other prohibited books,conformably to the rules of the index," giving as his reason, "for it is evident from experience, that theholy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have through the temerity of men, produced more

harm than benefit" [Ibid., p. 182].Pope Gregory XVI, later in the century, echoed former exactments:"Moreover, we confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolicauthority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scripturestranslated into the vulgar tongue" [Ibid., p. 182].Apparently we may have the Bible, so long as it is in alanguage we cannot understand!

While there seems to be an easing of the suppression of the Bible in strongly democratic and largelyProtestant countries, the real attitude of Rome to Bible distribution among her people is the same asever. A group of Christians has been for some time conducting a campaign of New Testamentdistribution among the French Canadians of Quebec province. The Cardinal-archbishop of Quebec,Villeneuve, made plain his position when he said of these New Testaments, "This sort of literature can

neither be read, kept, nor given to others in good conscience, and the best thing to do if we are insultedby having these writings sent to us is to throw them in the fire." The Bible-burning spirit is still alive inRome. A big bonfire of Bibles is just a bit more spectacular than having single copies stuck in the stove!

The bonfires are not altogether out of date either! My friend, Dr. Paul Culley, former dean of WheatonCollege, has in his possession a Bible which he rescued from a pile of Bibles, Testaments, and Christianliterature collected for burning by the Roman Catholic Church in a city of the Philippines, no farthergone than the year 1939 A. D. Dr. Culley himself has told the story in the May 1939 issue of thePhilippine Evangelist. Before the "solemn" ceremony of the bonfire, there was a press exhibit of the pileof "anti-catholic" literature (prizes had been offered for collecting it!), consisting of Bibles, Testaments,




7/47

Gospels, and portions. There was, by way of contrast, a Catholic display, featuring magazines frommany parts of the world, lives of popes, and other items, but not a single Bible appeared in that exhibit -not even a Catholic version, nor any portion of Holy Scripture. Rome still burns Bibles!

I know the Roman apologist's answer to the stern facts of Bible-burning. It is the same as their reply tothe charge of persecution: "It has never been done by the authority of the church." Apparently every actof suppression requires a special command by the pope, or else "it is not done by the authority of the

church." But we have little evidence of the pope's trying to stop either the Bible-burning or thepersecuting. Rome will have to assume responsibility for the consistent actions of her clergy, nor willhistory release the popes themselves from their active participation in these atrocities.

Another puzzle is that while Rome denies suppressing the Bible, she turns around and gives reasons forsuppressing it: like a man who pleads not guilty to the charge of murder and in the same breath tells thecourt why he murdered his victim. Three reasons Rome gives for denying Scriptures to the people:

(1) They cannot understand it.(2) It would smash the Roman unity as it has Protestant unity.(3) It is productive of atheism.

Officially a Roman Catholic is allowed to read the Bible, but just as officially he is not allowed tointerpret it. Since, then, the easiest way to keep people from interpreting the Bible is to keep it out otheir hands, the safest policy is suppression. That seems to be the logic of the Roman attitude.

Even the Roman priest is not permitted to seek any interpretation of Holy Scripture apart from theinfallible dogmas handed to him. At his ordination he takes a solemn vow not to interpret Scriptureexcept "according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers." Support for this position is found in 2Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Thatis true, and the vagaries of men are to be deplored, but Rome has forgotten that God has given to Hispeople an infallible Interpreter of the infallible Word in the person of the Holy Spirit. It is of this theapostle John speaks when he says, "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,"and again, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that anyman teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is not lie, and evenas it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:20, 27). This is a complete answer both to theerror of "private interpretation" and to the heresy of papal interpretation. It is the bounden duty of everyChristian to submit himself to the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Word, and the privilege of everyChristian to bring every teaching of men to the judgment of the Word of God.

The Roman charge against the divisions of Protestantism is one of their strong arguments, and at firstseems unanswerable to the timid, but there are several alleviating factors, to say the least, after we haveadmitted the tragedy of the situation. First of all, many of these Protestant factions represent the varyingdegrees in which different groups have thrown off the Roman heresies and practices, so that the Roman

corruptions, and not the open Bible, are basically responsible for many of our differences.

Then, too, there is a difference between unity and uniformity. There are two states in which nodifferences are expressed - the state of the dead and the Nazi state. Pick your choice, but I shall choosethe wholesome freedom of a living democracy. In this land of ours, there are political differences a-plenty, religious differences, but when Japan struck Pearl Harbor the world learned that thisheterogeneous democracy was a great, solid unity. Evangelical Christianity is not a uniform system, andhas many denominational expressions, but there is a living unity which is far more wonderful than anyexternal uniformity. The prayer of our Lord for the unity of His people has not gone unanswered, despitesuperficial differences of practice.




8/47

On the other hand, the uniformity of Rome belies its true state. There is no such hot hatred betweenProtestant denominations as exists between various orders of the Roman church in their jealousy of eachother. We shall not dwell on the rivalries of the Dominicans and the Franciscans, and the hatred in whichthe Jesuits have been held by other orders of the Roman church. Only let Rome put her own house inorder before she makes propaganda of Protestantism's divisions.

Rome charges that the open Bible policy of Protestantism has produced not only divisions, but as a

result, indifferentism, and then atheism. I shall answer with two questions. What made Russia officiallyanti-church, anti-Christian, and anti-God? Was it the Protestant's open Bible or was it a reaction to anecclesiastical system so like Rome that one could scarcely tell them apart? Coming nearer home - whatis producing the tidal wave of atheism in the South American republics, the open Bible of the Protestantsor the corruption of Rome? The Bible has a wonderful way of convincing both deceived Romanists anddisillusioned atheists.

Rome claims that the Protestant attitude has come to be one of indifferentism, and contrasts that with theauthoritarianism of her own system. So far as modernism, which has departed from the Bible, isconcerned, that may be true, but those who cleave to the Scriptures are not indifferentists. We know that"as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." In other words, what a man believes does matter: it determines

both his character and his destiny. It is just because we are not indifferentists, because it supremelymatters what a man believes, and because Rome has advanced dogmas which a man embraces at theperil of his soul, that we have undertaken the present task when our own liking should have led in verydifferent fields of study. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not theSon shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). See that you believe "accordingto the Scripture," and not according to the traditions of men.

3. The Perpetual Sacrifice

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" - Hebrews 10:14.

The institution of the mass is very definitely held by the Roman church to be a sacrifice, and apropitiatory sacrifice at that. But we must carry back a piece to get the "build" of the doctrine. We gofirst to the upper room, where our Lord partook of the Last Supper with His disciples. "And as they wereeating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; thisis my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for thisis my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mat. 26:28). TheRoman teaching is that when Jesus said, "This is my body," and "this is my blood," He there and thengave His body and blood in sacrifice. The place of the actual sacrifice was not Calvary, but the upperroom. At that moment He became a sacrificial victim, and from that moment He was in a dyingcondition, a state of victimization.

By this action a physical change came over our Lord. So that I may not unintentionally color theteaching, let me use the words of Father Richard W. Grace: [R. W. Grace, The Sacrifice of Christ (J. F.Wagner, 1937), p. 75]. "That Divine High Priest, who is Truth itself and a priest according to the orderof Melchisedech, and who had really victimized Himself under the appearance of bread and wine,thereby unfitted His Body to hold His Blood and unfitted His Blood to abide in His Body; and, inconsequence, unfitted both Body and Blood to continue in union with His human soul." Now this is theexplanation of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Most of us have looked upon that anguish as aforetaste of Calvary, the beginning of the desolation of soul which was to culminate in the cry of theForsaken One on the cross. Some evangelicals indeed attribute the Gethsemane experience to the




9/47

attempts of Satan to slay the Lord prematurely, before He could reach the cross. But here is somethingelse again. His "sorrow unto death" was the direct result of that offering of Himself in the upper roomunder the appearances of bread and wine, and the bloody sweat was symptomatic of that physicalchange wrought by His self-victimization, by which His body was unfitted to contain His blood, Hisblood unfitted to remain in His body, and His body and blood unfitted to retain His human soul. Theangel came and strengthened Him, miraculously staying the death-process until the later aspect of thesacrifice should be accomplished.

Keep in mind, please, that the Lord has already offered Himself in actual sacrifice in the upper room.What part, then, does the Cross play in the drama of sacrifice? According to the teaching, the Cross hasa double significance. For one thing, it completed the sacrifice by making it a public act. In the secondplace, the Cross fixed our Lord's state as a sacrificial victim. This latter, according to the Romanteaching, is the meaning of the mighty word, "It is finished." Says Father Grace, "These words do notdeclare that His sacrifice was finished, but that He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and wasnow fixed in the state of a victim" [Ibid., p. 108]. The "blood and water" which flowed from His piercedside, giving evidence of a rupture of the pericardium, are attributed to the reaction on His heart of Hissacrifice of Himself in the upper room, when He offered His body and blood under the appearances obread and wine. "When Christ victimized Himself at that Last Supper and on the cross was evidently

fixed in that sacrificial state, He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the NewLaw" [Ibid., p. 109].

This offering of Himself continues in heaven, and on earth is perpetuated in the mass. Every time thebread and the wine are consecrated on a Roman altar, Christ is sacrificed as an offering for sin as trulyas we believe He was at Calvary, the only difference being that then He was offered in the true form oHis humanity, while here He is offered in the form of bread and wine. Ethelred, a Cistercian superior othe 12th century in England, said to his monks, "We have no such great and evident sign of the birth oChrist as that we daily receive His body and blood at the holy altar, and that He who was once born forus of a Virgin is daily immolated in our sight." [The Catholic Church from Within (London: Longmans,Green, and Co., 1901), p. 1-70].

The Roman priest, then, repeats the sacrifice of Christ at every celebration of the mass. This he does,according to the teaching, in obedience to the command of the Lord Himself, "This do in remembranceof me." We have always accepted these words of the Savior in their most simple sense, namely, "Eat thisbread, and drink this cup, in remembrance of me." No, says Rome, that was a command given to thedisciples as priests of the new covenant, and to all duly appointed priests who should follow them, andsignifies this: "As I have now offered My body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine as asacrifice, so must you offer in sacrifice My body and blood in every celebration of this sacrament." Hewas, then, imposing priestly functions upon them, and giving Himself as a perpetual victim whom theywere to offer under the appearance of bread and wine. Father Grace makes much of that little word,"This do," claiming that it is a sacrificial word because it is used in the Septuagint seventy-six times withreference to sacrifice [The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 64]. Actually it is one of the commonest words in

Greek, and can be used, like our own word "do," with reference to any action; and is so often used inconnection with sacrifice in the Greek Old Testament because the Old Testament gives so manyinstructions in regard to sacrifice. The word itself proves nothing. But all that has been said amountsfinally to this: since there are about four masses per second offered up in all Christendom, Christ dies,immolated on a Romish altar, four times every tick of the clock, hour after hour, day in, day out, year byyear. That is the doctrine of the perpetual sacrifice.

Let me close this brief recital of the doctrine with two official declarations. The first is from the all-authoritative Council of Trent, which gave shape and expression to the faith of Rome as did theWestminster Assembly to the doctrine of Presbyterianism. "Whoever shall affirm that the sacrifice of the




10/47

mass is nothing more than an act of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is simply commemorative of thesacrifice offered on the cross, and not also propitiation, or that it benefits only the person who receivesit, nor ought to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and whateverbesides may be requisite, let him be accursed" [Council of Trent, Sess. XXII. Cap. 1]. Then, in differentmood, the prayer offered with the oblation of the host says: "Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty andEternal God, this unspotted host which I Thy unworthy servant offer unto Thee, my living and true God,for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful

Christians, both living and dead; that it may avail both me and them to everlasting life. Amen [CardinalGibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 110th Ed.), p. 318, (Here thecardinal uses the term "immaculate victim" instead of "unspotted host.")]. (The word 'Host' is from theLatin 'hostia,' which means 'an animal slain in sacrifice, a sin offering.')

Summing up the teaching, we have these main items:

(1) When our Lord gave the bread and wine to His disciples at the Last Supper, He therebymade the sacrifice of Himself and became a victim, commanding the disciples to repeat thatsacrifice with every celebration of the bread and wine.

(2) When our Lord died on the Cross, He made public the act of sacrifice actuallyperformed in the upper room, and fixed Himself in the state of a perpetual victim.

(3) The high-priestly work of Christ consists in a continual offering of Himself in sacrificefor His people.

(4) The celebration of the mass is the continual repetition on earth of the sacrifice of Christ,under the appearances of bread and wine. The Lord Jesus is actually immolated on theRoman altar about four times every second.

(5) This perpetual sacrifice is not simply memorial, or eucharistic, but propitiatory, actuallyoffered for sin, and to obtain eternal life for both living and dead.

What is the answer of the evangelical faith to this proposition?

First, if ever there was a fantastic interpretation of Scripture, it is surely the Roman exposition of thesimple incident of the Last Supper. Only an imagination unrestrained by reality could make out of ourLord's unadorned action an article of self-immolation. We know that His whole life constituted anumblemished offering to God: we know too that in the high sense of divine appointment, He is "TheLamb slain from the foundation of the world," but to place the historic action of the sacrifice for sin inthe upper room instead of at the Cross is to deny the whole tenor of Scripture and to reduce the entirefunction of interpretation to the level of riotous imagination. If the Cross is to be regarded as the"completion" of the sacrifice, and another point sought for the "offering" of the sacrifice, the "foundation

of the world" would be more in keeping with revelation than the Last Supper. But we know that therelationship between these two is that of appointment and fulfilment, while the nearer two events arerelated as symbolic representation and actual accomplishment.

See how this doctrine of the sacrifice of the upper room minimizes the Cross, and that despite thepublicity given the cross as a symbol in the Roman Church. Quite frankly Father Grace says, "It was noton the cross that Christ was made a victim. No, it was there that He completed His sacrifice both by itspublic manifestation and by finishing His passage from His former, normal, earthly life into thepermanent state of a victim " [The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 175]. The death of Christ is made subservient tothe institution of the Supper, which is viewed as the great moment of sacrifice: even as another Catholic




11/47

writer says, "In vain would our Divine Lord have come down to save us, have been made man in thestable of Bethlehem, have died for us on the Cross, if He had not left us this Blessed Memorial of HisPassion" [The Catholic Church from Within, p. 169]. So not only the institution of the Supper, but thecelebration of it, is given preeminence over the Cross itself. Without these, the Cross would have noefficacy.

It is scarcely necessary to say that that is not the emphasis of the New Testament. "As Moses lifted up

the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in himshould not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:14, 15). It is the "lifting up" on the cross that is given theemphasis. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). "Christ crucifiedwas the apostle Paul's great emphasis. It was the "preaching of the cross" that was foolishness to thosewho were perishing, "but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." It was on the cross that ourLord redeemed us from the curse of the law, "being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13). Till the great apostle cast all other boasting from him, saying,"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14). It is the Crossthat is declared to be the potent instrument of reconciliation, the blood of His Cross the agent of peace. Itwas at the cross that the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" was taken away, and there the"principalities and powers" were despoiled. We shall be wise to recognize the central place of the Cross

in the scheme of redemption and not shift the great act of our Lord's redeeming sacrifice elsewhere whenGod has placed it there!

Not only does the Roman doctrine shift the place of the actual sacrifice from the cross to the upperroom, but it sweeps away the "finished work" of the Cross by its scheme of perpetual sacrifice. By astrange quirk of reasoning, Rome argues that the sacrifice of Christ was there completed but notfinished. He must be perpetually sacrificed, invisibly in heaven, and visibly on earth in the mass. It is notthe sacrifice of the Cross that is repeated, but the sacrifice of the upper room, the sacrifice of His fleshand blood under the appearances of bread and wine; and, as we have seen, that is the real act of sacrifice,according to Rome. Our Lord's own cry, "It is finished," does not refer to a finished work of atonementin His death, but the completion and fixation of the state of a perpetual victim.

Since appeal is made by Roman apologists to the epistle to the Hebrews in regard to the continuingpriesthood of our Lord (and in that we heartily consent), we shall make our appeal largely to the sameScriptures in defense of the completed and finished sacrifice of Christ. The third verse of the firstchapter is enough to establish this great truth, and I shall quote it from the revised Roman Catholicedition: "who, being the brightness of his glory and the image of his substance, and upholding all thingsby the word of his power, has effected man's purgation from sin and taken his seat at the right hand othe Majesty on high." Please notice the verbs here. "Being," a literal translation of the Greek presentparticiple, and denoting continuity; "upholding," the same part of the verb, also denoting continuity ooperation; then "has effected," a translation of an aorist participle in the Greek, indicating a completedaction; "taken his seat," also from the aorist, which gives no hint of duration. The change from thepresent participles to the aorist is the significant thing here, showing that while the being and the

upholding are durative, the making purgation was a completed action, and our Lord's taking His seat inglory testifies to the purification of sin being an accomplished thing, requiring no further sacrifice.

I take you now to Hebrews 7:26, 27. The Roman Catholic translation is even clearer than our KingJames version in this Scripture: "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent,undefiled, set apart from sinners, and become higher than the heavens. He does not need to offersacrifices daily (as the other priests did), first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people; forthis latter he did once for all in offering up himself." If our Lord offered a "once for all" sacrifice for thesins of the people when He offered Himself, so that, as the Scripture says, He has no need to offer dailyas did the priests of old, why does He have to be immolated on Roman altars four times per second "for




12/47

sins, punishments, satisfactions," and the rest?

Now turn to Hebrews 9:11-14. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by agreater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither bythe blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, havingobtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifersprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood o

Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience fromdead works to serve the living God?" Again the "once for all" entrance into the Holiest signifies apresentation needing no repetition. An offering has now been made whose efficacy is available to all.The blood of Christ, shed once on the cross, is sufficient for the cleansing of the most defiledconscience.

Again, Hebrews 9:24-28. "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are thefigures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that heshould offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of theworld hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once

to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto themthat look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." I cannot think how anyone,priest or layman, could read that Scripture and continue to believe in the perpetual sacrifice, thecontinued victimization of our Lord, either in heaven, or on the altar of the mass.

But go on into the 10th chapter and read the first 14 verses. Here we learn that, once perfected, we needno more offering for sin, and we are also told that He has perfected us by the one offering of Himself.The perpetual sacrifice is a positive denial of the efficacy of the "once for all" sacrifice. The Romanistshold, of course, that their sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice, not other than that which our LordHimself offered. But in this Scripture the sacrifices of Israel are spoken of as identical. The repetitionmarked the first and all successive sacrifices as ineffectual. To offer the "Same" sacrifice is to accountits first offering ineffectual, so the whole system of the mass blasphemes the one perfect, all-sufficient

offering of our Lord, by which we have been sanctified and given a standing of perfection before a holyGod.

Let me turn to Romans for a last reference in this regard - a Scripture which gives an annihilatinganswer to the Roman position. "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live withhim: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion overhim. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God" (Rom. 6:8-10).What shall we do with the four times per second immolation of Christ on Roman altars in view of thisdeclaration that He "dieth no more"? We shall regard such a teaching as one of the most shockingblasphemies of the Christian age, and turn with new fervor of trust and gratitude to that one sacrifice othe Cross by which our redemption was forever won, in which we see the remission of our sins and our

eternal life

"Lifted up was He to die;'It is finished!' - was His cry:Now in heaven, exalted high:-Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"

4. The Dogma of Transubstantiation




13/47

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till hecome" - 1 Corinthians 11:26.

We have thus far been focusing our thought particularly on the sacrifice of the mass, and should nowconsider the sacrament which so closely accompanies it - the sacrament of the holy eucharist. Thedifference between the sacrifice and the sacrament must be kept in mind. The sacrifice is presented toGod as a propitiatory offering for sin, to obtain absolution and other spiritual benefits. In the sacrament

the worshiper receives somethng which imparts grace, involving union with God in the person of thevictim. The Catholic Catechism defines the difference as the Roman church views it. "How is theSacrament of the Holy Eucharist distinguished from the Sacrifice? The Sacrament of the Eucharist isdistinguished from the Sacrifice: (1) because the Sacrament is completed by the Consecration andremains, whereas the whole idea of sacrifice consists in its being offered up - hence the Sacred Host,when in the Tabernacle or when taken to the sick, is to be regarded as a Sacrament and not as aSacrifice; (2) because the Sacrament is the cause of merit in those who receive it and is for the profit otheir souls, whereas the Sacrifice is not only a source of merit but also has the power of makingsatisfaction" [Cardinal Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism, p. 170 (Authorized translation of Hugh Pope,O.P.)].

The same elements appear in both sacrifice and sacrament - the bread and the wine: the one consecrationconstitutes these a fit object for both sacrifice and sacrament, the body and blood of Christ to be offeredon the altar to God as a true sacrifice for sin, the same body and blood of Christ to be received by theworshiper as a communion. Now the act of consecration does not merely hallow the bread and wine assacred symbols of the body and blood of our Lord. The holy eucharist is more than a memorial supper. Itis here that the dogma of the "Real Presence" enters. The Catechism declares: "The Sacrament of theHoly Eucharist is a Sacrament instituted by Christ wherein Jesus Christ Himself, the Author of grace, istruly, really, and substantially contained under the appearances of bread and wine for the spiritualrefreshment of our souls" [Ibid., p. 169]. It is the act of consecration that determines the "RealPresence." "When the priest in the Mass pronounces the words of consecration over the bread and wine,The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with His Soul and His Godhead, become truly,really, and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine" [Ibid., p. 165].

It is not a matter, either, of our Lord entering into the bread and wine in some mystical fashion. Thebread and wine are actually changed into the very flesh and blood of the Redeemer. This change iscalled transubstantiation, and is defined thus: "When Jesus Christ pronounced the words of consecrationover the bread and wine, there took place a wonderful and unique change of the whole substance of thebread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Jesus Christ, although theappearances of bread and wine remained" [Ibid., p. 163]. This same change is wrought every time apriest consecrates bread and wine at the altar. The official dictum of the Council of Trent on this subjectis as follows: "Trent, Sess. XIII, Decretum de sanctissima Eucharistia, cap. IV: 'But since Christ ourRedeemer said that that was truly His Body which He was offering up under the appearance of bread, ithas always been the conviction of the Church of God - and this Holy Synod declares it anew - that by

the consecration of the bread and wine the entire substance of bread is converted into the substance othe Body of Christ our Lord, and the entire substance of wine into the substance of His Blood, whichconversion is by the Catholic Church fittingly and rightly termed transubstantiation' " [Ibid., p. 370].

Roman Catholics are very particular how this doctrine is stated. Dr. Alexander Whyte wrote a handbookon the Presbyterian Shorter Catechism. Commenting on the statement dealing with the Lord's Supper,which says that we are, "not after a corporal or carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His bodyand blood," Dr. Whyte suggested, "This is directed against the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation.According to that doctrine the bread and wine are changed into the very flesh and blood of Christ, sothat all communicants literally and physically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ." The author o




14/47

the handbook sent a copy to Newman, the former Anglican priest turned Roman and elevated to the highrank of Cardinal, with whom Dr. Whyte remained in personal friendship till the death of the aged cleric.The cardinal took exception to the wording I have just quoted, so the good Presbyterian asked thecardinal to suggest a statement which would truly represent the Roman position. Alexander Whyteincorporated Newman's statement into his second edition, as follows: "According to this doctrine, 'thesubstance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of the very flesh and blood of Christ, sothat all communicants literally and substantially partake of His flesh and blood' " [Barbour, The Life o

Alexander Whyte (New York: George H Doran, 1925), p. 243]. There is little to choose from, but byusing the terms of the Romanists themselves we shall avoid the least danger of misrepresentation.

Of course, the appearances of the bread and wine remain, what are called the accidents, that is, theshape, size, color, weight, taste, and everything that touches the senses. Nevertheless the substance is notbread, nor wine, but the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic is taught to deny his sensesin this matter and accept that which looks, feels, smells, and tastes like bread and wine as somethingelse, the substance of these having been changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.Cyril of Jerusalem therefore teaches in his Catecheses: "Judge not by the taste but by faith, put awayhesitation and be certain that ye have been honored with the gift of the Body and Blood of Christ.Taught thus; imbued with this most sure faith that what seems bread is not bread - though to the sense o

taste it may be so - but is the body of Christ; that what seems wine is not wine - though to the taste itmay seem so - but is the Blood of Christ - in this faith strengthen thy heart" [Catholic Catechism, p.373].

Not only is this faith encouraged, but it is demanded, and a curse pronounced on all who receive it not.Here is the decree of the Council of Trent: "If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of theEucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the Body and Blood of our LordJesus Christ, and shall deny that marvelous and unique conversion of the entire substance of the breadinto His Body, and of the entire substance of wine into His Blood, while the species of bread and winealone remain, a conversion which the Catholic Church most fittingly terms transubstantiation, let him beanathema" [Ibid. p. 376]. Moreover, there is no salvation for anyone outside the church which holds andteaches this doctrine of transubstantiation. So said the Lateran Council of 1215, in its decree against the

Albigenses: "There is one universal Church of the faithful outside which absolutely no one is saved, inwhich Jesus Christ Himself is both Priest and Victim, whose Body and Blood are truly contained in theSacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine, the bread and the wine being by theDivine power tran-substantiated into His Body and Blood, so that for the perfecting of the mystery ounity we may receive of Him what He took from us" [Ibid., p. 375].

The Romanists defend this dogma by an appeal to that mystical statement of our Lord in John 6:51-56 inwhich He presents Himself as the bread of life; and also to the words of the institution, "This is my body- this is my blood." With regard to the former passage, they hold that our Lord was promising a literalgiving of His flesh and blood for eating and drinking unto life everlasting; that He fulfilled this promiseto the disciples in the upper room, where they ate the flesh and drank the blood of the Lord under the

appearances of bread and wine; and that in like manner His flesh and blood are eaten and drunk in thesacrament of the Holy Eurcharist as a means of obtaining life everlasting and union with God in Christ.Again, the words, "this is my body," and "this is my blood," are to be taken in utter literalness, the verbbeing used to signify complete identity.

We have stated the dogma of Rome, and I scarcely need to declare our disagreement. John Wyclif wascited by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) for his three protestations against the doctrine otransubstantiation:

"(1) The material substance of bread, and similarly the material substance of wine, remain




15/47

in the Sacrament of the altar.

"(2) The accidents of bread do not remain without a subject in the said Sacrament.

"(3) Christ is not in the said Sacrament identically and really in His own corporalpresence" [Ibid., p. 376].

We might express our protest against the Roman doctrine in other terms, but let us see whether we cansustain the evangelical position against the popish one.

First, we are asked to believe a miracle for which there is not a scrap of evidence. Bible miracles are notof that order, but have themselves evidential value, being wrought as aids to faith, not as stumbling-blocks. When God turned Moses' rod into a serpent, it had not only the substance of a serpent, but all themarks and tokens of a serpent, so that even Moses fled from it. When God turned the water of Egypt intoblood, it did not retain the accidents of water. The Egyptians could not drink it. When our Lord turnedthe water into wine at Cana, the ruler of the feast did not have to lay down a dogma to the guests thatwhat looked like, tasted like, and was odorless like water was really very fine wine. When lame menwere healed, they did not carry the limping appearance of lame men around with them. Some RomanCatholics will answer that this is "trifling with the things of God." Not so. On the contrary, if God didwhat Rome affirms in the eucharist, God would be trifling with human reason, that gift of the Creatorwhich is one of the marks of the divine image in man. The faith unto salvation which God demands isnot a blind faith: it is a faith supported by ample evidence in creation, in history, in providence, inexperience. Only Rome asks for a blinding of the reason for belief in her dogmas.

In only one form is our Lord Jesus represented in all His appearings to men, and that is "like unto theSon of man." Even when He is spoken of as an angel, the form is that of a man. This is true both in theChristophanies of the Old Testament and in the post-ascension appearings. When He passed by Elijah onMount Horeb, the mighty wind, the shivering earthquake, and the fire betokened His presence, but "theLord was not in the wind.. .the Lord was not in the earthquake. . .the Lord was not in the fire" (1 Kings19:11, 12). Our Lord has humbled Himself to enter into our humanity, but Rome has humbled Him still

further into the form of inanimate bread and wine to be eaten and drunk by sinners. Of course, if a ratwere accidentally to find the wafer, it would magically become no longer Christ but return to its formersubstance of bread! No, no! the humiliation of our Lord to the death of the Cross is not thus rewardedwith perpetual humiliation on Roman altars, but with perpetual exaltation. "Wherefore God also hathhighly exalted Him," not in the elevation of the host for idolatrous worship, but "at His own right handin the heavenlies." Nor is He at the same time exalted in heaven and degraded on earth. The day of Hishumiliation is past. Men may spurn Him, scoff at Him, blaspheme Him, but they can no more humiliateHim whom God has exalted far above all heavens, a Prince and a Savior.

But how shall we regard those statements of our Lord, in His Galilee address on the bread of life and inthe institution of the supper, upon which Rome's apologists depend for a defense of their doctrine? Let

us read the wonderful verses in John 6:51-59: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: iany man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I willgive for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this mangive us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the fleshof the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh myblood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and myblood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Asthe living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: hethat eateth of this bread shall live forever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in




16/47

Capernaum."

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" asked the multitude. We have heard Rome's answer. Let ushear Christ's own answer. He presents a triple proposition regarding eating His flesh and drinking Hisblood. Negatively, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man is the "sine qua non" of lifefor men (vs. 53). Positively, their partaking of the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus imparts eternal lifeand assures a place in the resurrection of life and blessedness (vs. 54). Further, eating and drinking o

this sacred meat is the means of communion, through mutual indwelling (vs. 56). But what does it meanto eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man? We do not have to go far afield for anexplanation of this mystical language. Eating is to satisfy hunger; drinking is to quench thirst. Thesatisfying meat and drink are His flesh and Mood. How do we eat and drink of these? He has Himseltold us in this very chapter, in verse 35: "He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believethon me shall never thirst." If coming to Him is the end of hunger, and believing on Him the end of thirst,then the coming and the believing are the eating and the drinking. [Dr. Henry M. Woods quotes aSpanish priest, Maldonado, as saying in this regard: "Do not prepare your teeth and your belly for it, butbelieve in Him, and you have eaten Him." That is evangelical, not Roman, teaching!] But it is a comingto Him and a believing on Him as the crucified One, the sacrificed One, who in His death accomplishedall that the ancient altar taught of substitution, atonement, and reconciliation. That sacrifice we recall at

every partaking of the simple communion feast, and there we renew our faith and love.

When many of our Lord's disciples, who thought only in terms of an earthly Messiah, heard thismystical language with its strong flavor of the altar and sacrifice, they were offended, saying, "This is arepulsive saying." Now listen to our Lord's answer: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see theSon of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (vs. 61-63). He was talking, Hedeclared, not in physical or sacramental terms, but spiritual. It is not eating the substance of His fleshthat gives life, nor drinking the substance of His blood. He has spoken in the language of sacrifice, andwhen we embrace His finished work for us, we enter into the benefits of His sacrifice: that is eating Hisflesh and drinking His blood. There is nothing carnal about it.

Now we come to the strong argument of Rome. Our Lord said, "This is my body," and "This is myblood," and what right have we to turn from or alter these plain statements? That sounds like goodreasoning, but it is not as easy as that. The verb in the Greek, esti, is the counterpart of our verb "to be,"and is used with as varied meanings as our own. In the unabridged Liddell and Scott lexicon, I read thisunder eimi Bi - "to be, the Copula connecting the predicate with the subject, both being in the same case:- this is the commonest usage; - sometimes the simpler sense of to be passes into that of to amount to, tosignify, import - especially in the phrase tout' esti, hoc est." Now that is the very structure used here,both in the Greek text and in the Latin Vulgate. So the word sometimes means "To signify," especiallyin this structure, without departing from a literal sense. If this is a recognized usage, why should it bedenied to our Lord, when that is the sensible sense of the phrase? If we must stick to the stern literalnessthat Rome demands in this connection, we shall find ourselves in difficulties. "This cup is the new

testament," said Jesus, here omitting the verb and so making the identity the stronger. No one can denythat here we have figurative language. For one thing, the cup is put for the contents, and certainly neitherthe cup nor its contents constituted the covenant, but symbolized it. Zwingli, when arguing this point inZurich, referred to the parallel Old Testament institution of the Passover, where it is said in Exodus12:11 concerning the lamb, "Ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover." The same verb is hereused in the Septuagint as in the institutional passage in the New Testament, and there is no doubt aboutits use in the sense of "signify." The Roman demand for the literal sense here is both baseless andsenseless.

But now I want to present a blatant inconsistency in the Roman position. As most of you probably know,




17/47

the communicants in the Roman church receive only the bread of communion, the cup being kept for thepriest. The law banning the cup to the laity was given by the Council of Constance in 1414, andconfirmed by the Council of Trent, so often referred to. Now if the bread is the very flesh of Christ, andthe wine His very blood, why should the laity be barred from the latter when our Lord said, "Except yeeat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53)? Rome has heranswer, in the form of another dogma, namely, concomitance. Let the Council of Trent again give itsinfallible dictum: "It has always been the belief of the Church that immediately after the Consecration

the true Body of our Lord as well as His true Blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, His soulalso and His Godhead, are there; the Body under the appearance of bread, the Blood under theappearance of wine by force of the very words used, but the Body too under the appearance of wine, andthe Blood under the appearance of bread, and the soul as well under either, by force of that naturalconnection and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead todie no more, are knit together; His Godhead also, by reason of His wonderful hypostatic union with Hissoul and body. Whence it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both; forthe whole and entire Christ is under the appearance of bread and under every particle of those species,the same, too, under the species of wine and of its every drop. If anyone shall deny that in the VenerableSacrament of the Eucharist the entire Christ is contained under either species and under every particle oeither when separated, let him be anathema" [Ibid., p. 380].

In keeping with this, an English Catholic writes: "Not only do we receive Him whole and entire undereither species, but we receive, by what is called concomitance, the Soul and Divinity of our DivineSaviour as well" [The Catholic Church from Within, p. 172]. Dr. John O'Brien enumerates the reasonsgiven by the Council of Trent for the withholding of the cup from the laity: "the danger of spilling thePrecious Blood; the difficulty of reserving the sacrament under the species of wine; and the danger tohealth from partaking of a chalice touched by infected lips" [The Faith of Millions, p. 223]. In otherwords, our Blessed Lord did not quite know what He was up to, and the Church had to improve uponHis instruction. Why did the Lord give the sacrament in a form fraught with such danger and difficulty?See how Rome has both added to and taken from the words of the Lord. He said of the bread, "It is mybody," but Rome says, "It is body, blood, soul and divinity." Jesus says of the cup, "It is my blood," butRome says, "It is blood, body, soul and divinity." Rome must needs correct the Lord's teaching. Then

Jesus says, "This do," both of the bread and of the cup, while the apostle Paul gives by the word of theLord, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor.11:26). But Rome will force her communicants to a partial obedience, assuring them that they arereceiving all in the part.

It remains to say a word about the elevation of the host, at which all Catholics bow in adoration. It is noordinary reverence that is given to the consecrated wafer, but the worship of latria, the worship which isgiven to God alone, for this wafer has become very God. We call it idolatry. The Romanist, of course,will answer that he is not worshiping an image or idol, but the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance obread. That exactly is the essence of idolatry - to worship God under any appearance whatsoever. WhenAaron made the golden calf in the wilderness and said to the people, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which

brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex. 32:4), both Aaron and the people knew that this calf,which they had seen made before their eyes, was not God, nor had it brought them out of Egypt - ratherthey had brought it out in the form of earrings. But by the consecration of that calf they believed thatGod was present in it, and they worshiped God under the appearance of the calf. But God would not beidentified with it, and judged them for idolatry. Even the heathen do not profess to worship stones andtrees, but the spirits identified with them. And the attempt to worship God under any species is pureidolatry. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heavenabove, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow downthyself to them, nor serve them" (Ex. 20:4, 5a) [It is significant that Rome omits this commandmentfrom her catechism, and splits the last two to make up the number ten]. That is just what Rome does,




18/47

bowing down before a piece of bread transformed into a god. There is no more blatant idolatry in allheathendom than the idolatry of the mass. So, then, the very heart of the whole Roman system is a greatblasphemy, a shocking idolatry.

5. The Roman Priesthood

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentilesexercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But itshall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be yourminister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Sonof man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom formany" - Matthew 20:25-28.

Rome calls her ministers priests. Other communions do the same, but evangelicals among them do notapply the sacramental connotation to the term that Rome does, while most Protestant bodies shrink fromthe term itself as referring to a clerical class.

In the New Testament the Christian minister is not once given this title. The three categories that bear itare: the priests of the Old Testament order, which was still in existence in the days of Christ, andcontinued to function, although rejected of God, till the fall of Jerusalem; our Lord Jesus Himself, whoin His exaltation at God's right hand is "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; and allbelievers, who are designated "a kingdom of priests," " a royal priesthood," whose function now andhereafter is "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). A priestlyclass within the ranks of the redeemed is not found in the New Testament.

The New Testament minister is variously designated in Scripture. The word "minister" is a translation othree different Greek terms. One is leitourgos from which we derive our word liturgy. It originally meantone who did service for the state in some official capacity, and so came over into the church to indicate

one serving God in a particular office. Yet its uses in the New Testament are varied. Appearing fivetimes, it refers once to civil rulers, once to Paul as a minister of Christ, once to Epaphroditus who wassent to Paul from the church in Philippi with their gift to the apostle, once to angels, and once to ourLord in His priestly character. Only once, then, does this title carry the thought of priestly functions, andthat when applied to Christ Himself (Heb. 8:2). It is scarcely necessary to deal with the associatedwords, which also carry divers applications, but never fasten distinctly priestly duties upon a classwithin the church.

The second term, huperete's, signifies originally an oarsman in a galley and then an assistant. It isfrequently translated "officer," and sometimes "servant." Four times it is used in the New Testament oChristians; once of the disciples when Jesus said that they would fight if His kingdom were of thisworld; once of John Mark, who accompanied Barnabas and Paul as their assistant; once of Paul, wherethe title is joined to that of witness; once of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, when Paul was condemning theschism that had arisen in Corinth over their names, as if they were rivals instead of co-operating servantsof the Lord. Once again, no sign of a priesthood appears under this term.

The third is diakonos, from which we have our word deacon. Again there is a variety of usages. We readof "deacons of Satan," deacons of men, deacons of God, and deacons of the church. Christ Himself isreferred to as a "deacon of the circumcision." Sometimes the functions are civil, sometimes domestic,sometimes religious, but there is no case where it is clearly priestly.




19/47

Apart from these terms which are frequently translated "minister" in our version, the New Testamentministers have other designations. "Elder" and "bishop" are two of these. They would seem to signifythe one office, for when Paul called together the "elders" of the church at Ephesus, he addressed them asthose whom the Holy Spirit had appointed "bishops" of the flock. John and Peter called themselveselders. In this regard Peter, whom Rome has raised to the place of primacy as the first pope, used alovely term. Addressing the elders, he called himself the sunpresbuteros, "elder along with," so takinghis place not simply on a par with the other apostles, but on a level with the common run of elders in the

church. Whatever leadership he had in the infant church, he was only primus inter pares. The title"bishop" denotes the administrative function of oversight, the title "elder" the mature character whichshould mark the office. It is clear, too, that there was a plurality of elders, or bishops, in each church, notone bishop over many churches. The episcopate as we now know it was a post-apostolic development.

Again, the ministry of the New Testament church included prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,these terms referring not to the offices held but to the ministries performed. One person might performseveral of these ministries, even as today, and might or might not hold office as elder or bishop. But inall this wide variety of terminology and function, the priestly conception is strangely absent. It is equallywanting in the accounts of apostolic activity and in the apostolic teachings. There is no trace of theapostles taking over, or instructing others to take over, some New Testament counterpart of the Levitical

priesthood. The apostles continued for a time to participate in the ritual of the temple, even to bringingofferings, but they never regarded themselves as successors of the Jewish priests. Once the apostle Pauluses the language of the altar to depict his spirit of self-sacrifice on behalf of the saints: "Yea, and if I beoffered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all" (Phil. 2:17). It wouldbe straining the passage to distortion to read into it anything of a professional priesthood.

To the Roman priest are attributed two prerogatives which give him the dominating place he holds in thelives of the people. Theologically these are stated as "the jurisdiction over the natural and over themystical Body of Christ" [Cardinal H. E. Manning, Eternal Priesthood (Burns, 1883), p. 12]. Jurisdictionover the natural body of Christ means the consecration of the sacrament of the altar in which the breadbecomes, at the word of the priest, the very flesh of our Lord: that is, the whole substance of the breadbecomes the whole substance of the body of Christ. The jurisdiction of the mystical Body of Christ,

namely, the church, signifies the priest's power to give absolution, to forgive sin.

We have already considered the question of the substantial change of the bread and wine into the veryflesh and blood of Christ. We return to it only to consider what extravagant exaltation this gives to theRoman priest.

In Montreal I obtained a copy of a booklet written for the edification of the faithful, and entitled "ThePriest." It carries the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Ottawa. The author does not give his name, butdevotes a good portion of the little volume to quotations from a French venerable, since he feels himselaltogether unworthy to speak on the exalted topic of a fellow-sinner who has received holy orders. "Inorder to explain to you what the priest is, and to speak to you in a manner befitting the subject, my life

would need to be purified with a burning coal, as the angel purified those of the prophet." Then heproceeds to quote from an address delivered by the venerable J. B. M. Vianney, Cure d' Ars, to a throngof pilgrims. Here are a few of the sentences quoted:

"Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is noreligion."

"Without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us."

"See the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a




20/47

God! A greater feat than the creation of a world."

After that you do not wonder at these others:

"If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before saluting the angel.The angel is a friend of God, but the priest holds the place of God."

"Next to God Himself, the priest is everything."

"Did we understand him and appreciate him in this life, we should die, not of fear, but oflove ..."

John the Baptist said concerning our blessed Lord, "He must increase, but I must decrease." That orderis reversed in the case of the Roman priest. With the exaltation of the priest comes the humiliation of theLord. That was seen in connection with the perpetual sacrifice, but listen to the bold statement oCardinal Manning as he writes about the powers of the priesthood: "The incarnation was a descentwhich had many degrees. He emptied Himself by veiling His glory; He took the form of a servant; Hewas made man; He humbled Himself; and that to death; and to die in ignominy. Here are six degrees ohumiliation. And as if these were not enough, He perpetuates His humility in the Blessed Sacrament,and places Himself in the hands of His creatures, and is bid, morning by morning, by their word to bepresent upon the altar; and is by them lifted up, and carried to and fro, and, in the end, He is received bythe worthy and by the unworthy. In this divine manner He subjects Himself to the jurisdiction of Hispriests now... " [Ibid., p. 13 (italics ours)]. The apostle Paul invited the Lord to command him: the Lordis at the beck and call of the Roman priest.

The power of the priest is further enhanced by his jurisdiction over the mystical Body of Christ, or hispower to forgive sins. As his power to bring Christ down upon the altar is said to have been bestowed byour Lord's words in the upper room, "This do in remembrance of me," so the prerogative of absolutionwas declared in the upper room after the resurrection, when the Lord, breathing upon them, said:"Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever

sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 30:22, 23). To like purpose were the words to Simon Peter atCaeserea Philippi, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thoushalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:19).

Confessedly these are difficult passages, and involve more than one question of unending controversy.In the first place, it is a question whether these words were spoken to Peter and his successors, and to theapostles and their successors, or whether they conferred peculiar rights and prerogatives on the apostlesalone. But suppose we grant that Peter and his fellow-apostles were to have successors in the churchwho should enjoy all their powers and privileges, it is certain that these words did not grant to thesuccessors more than they gave to the original recipients. It will be safe to go no farther in the exerciseof the rights involved than did the apostles. Is there, then, a single instance recorded in all the NewTestament of an apostle forgiving sins in the manner practiced by the priests of the church of Rome?There is not the faintest suggestion of it. Did Peter "give absolution" to Cornelius, or Paul to thePhilippian jailor? They preached to them salvation and the forgiveness of sins and opened the way forthem by their proclamation. Peter discerned the sin of Ananias and Sapphira and pronounced God'sudgment on it; Paul discerned the wickedness of Elymas and declared sentence upon it. Peter rebuked

the iniquity of Simon of Samaria and bade him repent lest evil should befall him. Paul charged thechurch at Corinth to excommunicate the braggart adulterer, but when the sinner was broken torepentance he bade the church receive him again, saying, "To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also:for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ " (2Cor. 2:10). Here the apostle does not use the great theological word for forgiveness or remission of sins,




21/47

but a word signifying "to act graciously." In no place do we find the apostles calling for auricularconfession and giving absolution. The practice is foreign to the New Testament.

There is indeed a binding and a loosing incumbent on the church. I speak of the matter of discipline, thevery matter that Paul dealt with in the Corinthian church. When a church, seeking the mind of the Spirit,imposes discipline upon a recalcitrant, unrepentent member, that action is accepted and bound inheaven: when that same church withdraws the disciplinary measures because of manifest repentance,

that loosing is honored in heaven. But that is a far cry from the authoritative absolution of the Romanpriest.

The sacrament of penance, the name given by Rome to this practice of confession and absolution, putsthe priest into a relation with the soul which belongs only to Christ. It makes him a mediator betweenGod and that soul. The catechism states this quite boldly: "The dignity of the priesthood is very great,for the priest is the minister of Christ and the dispenser of the mysteries of God; he is a mediatorbetween God and man, with power over the real as well as the mystical Body of Christ" [CatholicCatechism, p. 189]. Then, with an utter disregard for the blatant contradiction, it goes on, "Christ is the'One Mediator of God and men'; that is, He alone is the Mediator of redemption. But the priest, acting inthe person of Christ, applies to men the fruits of that redemption and is thus rightly called a mediator."

Behold how the sinner is shut up to do business with a fellow-sinner who steps between him and the onegreat divine Mediator, our Advocate with God and the fountain of all blessing! If the confessional werea voluntary institution, established for purposes of counsel and help, it could be of inestimable value.But to shut souls up to a confession of their sins to a fellow-mortal as the only agent of forgiveness, is torob God of His glory and put it upon a sinner.

"Such vile offenses to forgive,Such guilty, daring worms to spare,This is Thy grand prerogative,And in the honor none shall share;Who is a pardoning God like Thee,Or who has grace so rich and free?"

With all its profession of being a Christian church, Rome has an insidious way of pointing men tosomeone other than Christ. In Montreal there is an immense shrine built in honor of Brother Andre, anddedicated to the patron saint of the city, Joseph, husband of Mary. At the entrance is a statue of the saint,and on the front this motto in Latin, he ad Joseph. Now the subtlety of it all is that these words werespoken of another Joseph altogether, the Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and they were addressed byPharaoh to the Egyptians who came to him for corn during the famine. By such a trick the "faithful" aredirected to Joseph. Then the devotional literature of Rome carries this perversion: "Come unto Mary, allye that labor and are heavy laden, and she will give you rest." So the unwary are turned aside from Himwho spoke these precious words of invitation. Now we see the intrusion of the priest as mediator,trading with a forgiveness which is the sole prerogative of the God-man, our Lord Jesus Christ. The

Jews were right in their question, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" - if only they had seen God inthe Son of man, our blessed Lord.

The Roman forgiveness is not only a fiction and a fallacy, but it is laden with the dynamite of iniquity. Ihave no desire to expatiate on what have been called "the atrocities of the confessional," but only toindicate that the system is charged with peril. After all, priests are only men, made of common clay, andthey are deprived of the normal associations open to other men. Dr. Pusey, one of the leadingRomanizers in the Church of England in the nineteenth century, admitted the grave disorders among theclergy of his own communion who had embraced the Roman practices of c

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	servant-of-truth
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Bible & the Roman Catholic Church

Documents